The Foundation
of Our Theology: Is Orthodox
Doctrine Accummulated over Time?

(NOTE:
The following essay is a philosophical overview describing
more general ideologies and should be read in conjunction
with our "Early Church Confirmation
Rubric," which contains a more specific description of
how this philosophical model operates in practical terms.)

"In essentials unity,
In non-essentials liberty,
In all things charity."

The above quote or a similar version of it is often attributed
to Augustine. While scholars debate who actually authored
these words, the concept has become highly prevalent among
the leadership and laypersons of the modern Church. The popularity
of this axiom can be attributed in many ways to the ongoing
ecumenical movement. The ecumenical movement has sought to
secure the unity of the diverse Christian community around
primary Christian dogma, while allowing interpretive license
among denominational groups concerning "secondary" issues
of the faith.

For example, while most Christians may share a greater degree
of commonality on some doctrines that deal with the nature
of God or the Atonement (the Trinity, the nature of Christ,
the resurrection, etc.) there is a great deal of diversity
and disharmony on many other matters of the faith.

One thing that the ecumenical movement is not alone in identifying
is that as an ideology modern Christianity is riddled with
internal discord. And this is a key point to this article,
so we do not want to move over it too quickly.

From this point forward we will refer to this internal discord
as "unresolved orthodoxy." This phrase, "unresolved orthodoxy"
refers to the fact that in the modern Church, varying denominations
have differing and often contradictory positions on a range
of issues or doctrines including, for example, baptism, charismatic
gifts, eschatology, freewill, etc. We refer to this phenomenon
as "unresolved orthodoxy" because, particularly in certain
areas of doctrine, what is orthodox and what is not orthodox
has not been resolved, and, therefore, by necessity, some
heretical views are considered an acceptable part of orthodoxy.

In recognition of this diverse field of doctrinal positions,
one might ask the question, why are there so many divergent
interpretations of a single, authoritative truth source -
the Word of God, and perhaps more specifically the New Testament?
Why doesn't the modern church have a single, harmonious, unified
interpretation of Christian doctrine on all issues of the
faith?

The minority view held by the authors of this site and others
is that Christian teaching was handed down intact and fully
understood at least from the onset of the Church at Pentecost
in the earliest Christian antiquity. Or put more simply, orthodoxy
was understood by the Apostles and received intact from them
by second and third generation Christians. Thus, their doctrine
might be described as "pristine," which means "belonging to
the earliest period or state" and "not spoiled, corrupted,
or polluted" (although there were heretical sects trying to
enter and influence the Church from the beginning.)

To be as clear as possible early antiquity can be defined
as the apostolic era. It could also be defined as the period
of time during which the books of the New Testament were being
written. Both of these descriptions encompass the same period
of history, roughly 33 AD through the early 100's AD (when
John the Apostle is said to have passed away).

Those who hold to this view generally tend to hold to the
following principles:

1. Successive generations of the church are NOT free
to reinvent or redefine Christian beliefs and teachings. 2. In general, any teaching that is new (that is, not
found in the scripture and reflected in the writings of antiquity)
is therefore a false teaching and must be rejected as heresy.
3. Orthodoxy is defined as a single, harmonious (non-contradictory),
and knowable position on all issues of the faith that was
defined and preserved for us in the New Testament scripture.
4. Heresy is defined as any doctrine that falls outside
of the single, harmonious, known interpretation of the scripture
defined and preserved in the New Testament canon and handed
down from the Apostles to the second and third generation
of Christians in the earliest Christian antiquity.

Proponents of the Pristine Apostolic Faith do not hold the
writings of the second and third generation Christians (commonly
known as the Ante-Nicene writers or even more specifically
the Apostolic Fathers) to be infallible, inspired, or canonical.
However, due to the proximity of these writers to the Apostles
and the fact that many of these writers were either themselves
directly discipled by the Apostles or discipled by those who
were, their writings are viewed as a valuable resource for
informing us of the orthodoxy that the Apostles themselves
held to and taught. This is especially true where their writings
harmonize with the canonical writings of the New and Old Testament
authors (and where these writers themselves have consensus).
Only if and where their writings can be demonstrated by the
grammatical-historical method to diverge or conflict with
the canon of scripture, should their views be rejected.

Under this view the unresolved orthodoxy of the modern church
is attributed to the gradual acceptance of formerly identified
heretical views into Apostolic Orthodoxy. Although the epistles
demonstrate that heresy was already trying to creep into the
Church from the very beginning, that advance seems for the
most part to have been largely abated by the efforts of the
apostles. However, by mid to late 200's AD the infusion of
heresy into orthodoxy seems to have turned a corner, making
gradually more headway until it culminated more concretely
as history approached the Romanization of the Church and the
Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Continued divergence of doctrine
can be eliminated by a return to the authoritative standard
of the original orthodoxy preserved in the New Testament scripture
and reflected in the earliest post-New Testament, non-canonical
writings of early Church leaders, specifically the Apostolic
Fathers.

Option 2: Orthodoxy is Accumulated over Time. (The
Accumulated View)

The view that has been offered more and more by many modern
seminarians, theologians, and pastors in order to explain
why orthodoxy remains unresolved is that it was never resolved
in the first place. This position, which we have labeled as
the Accumulated View holds that orthodoxy was not fully grasped
at the onset of Christianity, but that it is instead gradually
understood through time and the continuing theological efforts
of Christian leaders over almost 2000 years and counting of
Church history.

Those who hold that orthodoxy was not handed down intact and
understood from the earliest Christian antiquity, but is instead
gradually understood over the centuries, generally hold to
the following principles:

1. Successive generations of the church achieve increasing
levels of understanding regarding correct Christian beliefs
and teachings, which in times past were not understood by
previous generations. Therefore it is acceptable and necessary
for Christian belief and teaching to change over time, this
change can be only slight in some areas or perhaps revolutionary
in others. 2. Longevity or ancient origin is not a factor when
considering the orthodoxy or heresy of a proposed doctrine
or teaching. 3. Orthodoxy is defined as a range or spectrum of interpretations
of scripture, which were proposed and accepted by various
historically prominent Christian movements. As a whole, orthodoxy
does and can contain views on a given issue that contradict
one another. For some issues of the faith it is not known,
which of various conflicting, but accepted orthodox views
are correct and which are incorrect, which are true church
teaching and which are heresy. (This view of orthodoxy has
been referred to above as Unresolved Orthodoxy). 4. Heresy is defined as any wrong teaching that has
been identified and discarded over time through the ongoing
efforts of Christian scholarship. (As opposed to the heretical
teachings, which must exist within accepted orthodoxy, but
have been deemed acceptable or have not yet and perhaps never
will be identified.)

Under this view, unresolved orthodoxy can be removed only
through the ongoing efforts of Church theologians and scholars
to examine and determine what orthodox teachings should be.
However, it should be noted that as a whole the ecumenical
movement is not concerned with resolving the internal conflict
within the accepted orthodox denominations of the modern church.
Instead they largely agree to disagree on whichever doctrines
they designate as non-essential.

Accumulated Orthodoxy or the Pristine Apostolic Faith?

Given the profound fundamental theological importance that
one's understanding of how orthodoxy originates has upon one's
approach to interpreting the Bible, it is imperative that
we gain a proper understanding of this issue. For reasons
that we will now explain we submit that the Church must discard
the Accumulated View of the origin of orthodoxy in favor of
the Pristine Apostolic Faith. The grounds for this rejection
are that the Accumulated View requires at least one if not
several of the following problematic or absurd conclusions
and/or inconsistencies which would be implied if orthodoxy
was not fully understood and handed down intact from the onset
of the Church.

If orthodoxy was not fully understood and handed down intact
from the onset of the Church, as the Accumulated View holds,
this would mean that either:

1. The Apostles themselves didn't understand orthodox
Church teaching. 2. OR The Apostles failed to pass on orthodox Church
teaching. 3. OR Orthodoxy becomes obscured in the absence of
direct Apostolic guidance.

If orthodoxy was not resolved at the onset of the Church this
would mean that either Jesus did not intend for the Apostles
to fully understand his teachings or that though this is what
Jesus intended, his 3 years of effort did not bear the fruit
of his investment.

Neither of these options is acceptable. Consider the Great
Commission.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am
with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Notice that it is clear from Jesus' words that he fully intended
that the Apostles would teach the nations all the things he
had taught and commanded them. Jesus' instructions here presuppose
that he had equipped the Apostles with a thorough understanding
of all his teaching and that the Apostles understood all the
things that he had taught them. Otherwise, how could Jesus
expect them to be able to pass "all that he had commanded
them" on to others?

This is further evidenced by the extent to which the Gospels
record Jesus teaching both to the crowds and to his disciples
in private. If Jesus did not intend to equip the Apostles
with a thorough understanding and knowledge of Church doctrines
on all issues of the faith then why did he spend so much time
teaching on so many various aspects of the faith?

On the other hand, it would be inappropriate to suggest that
Jesus' was unsuccessful in his intentions to equip the Apostles
with a thorough understanding and knowledge of Church doctrines
on all issues of the faith. As we have shown from Matthew
28, Jesus clearly thought that his efforts to do so were a
complete success.

Also, it is equally unacceptable and absurd to suggest that
the Apostolic authors of the New Testament scripture, (regarded
as the inerrant and authoritative Word of God for orthodox
Christian teaching) did not themselves understand the theology
that they were writing as they wrote it. Furthermore, for
modern scholars to simultaneously conclude that they themselves
understand orthodoxy while the Apostles could not or did not
would be profoundly arrogant because this notion necessitates
that they themselves are superior to the Apostles as interpreters
of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

For all of these reasons we must reject the idea that the
Apostles themselves did not fully understand orthodox Church
teaching. Therefore, we still are without an adequate explanation
for why orthodoxy remains unresolved in the modern church.

2. The Apostles failed to pass on orthodox Church teaching.

In order to uphold that orthodoxy was not fully resolved at
the onset of the Church and still have the Apostles understand
Jesus' teachings, some may suggest that the Apostles ultimately
failed to pass on Jesus' teachings to the next generation
of the church. This explanation for unresolved orthodoxy must
also be rejected because it also would be profoundly arrogant
for modern scholarship to suggest that they will succeed where
the Apostles themselves failed. Once again this notion would
necessitate that modern scholars are superior to the Apostles
as teachers of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In light of the unacceptability of the above two options,
if one still desires to reject the Pristine Apostolic View
described above, there remains a need to find someway to explain
how the Apostles both understood orthodox teaching and passed
it on to the next generation while at the same time the writings
of that next generation can be disregarded or dismissed on
the grounds that orthodoxy was not well understood by them.
In order to do this, the only recourse left for those who
oppose the Pristine Apostolic View is to suggest that the
obscurity of orthodoxy arose so immediately in that next generation
because orthodoxy necessarily always becomes obscure in the
absence of direct apostolic guidance.

In more practical terms, this would mean that while Jesus
and the Apostles fully understood and passed on a resolved
form of orthodoxy, it was quickly obscured in a matter of
only a few decades following the death of the last Apostle.
This explanation would hold that successive generations of
Christians were and are NECESSARILY unable to remain clear
about what orthodox teaching is in the absence of any apostles.

Therefore, according to this explanation, so long as direct
Apostolic guidance is not available, orthodoxy will remain
beyond the reach of successive generations of Christians.
And yet those who insist that orthodoxy is obscured without
direct Apostolic guidance have gone on to define "acceptable"
and "essential" orthodoxy as well as defining what is not,
even though we are still without direct Apostolic guidance.
If these scholars insist that direct Apostolic guidance is
necessary in order to properly define orthodoxy, it is inconsistent
for them to attempt to define what currently lies within and
outside the bounds of orthodoxy. The two reasons that this
is inconsistent are as follows.

First, since Apostolic guidance remains unavailable, when
modern scholars attempt to define the boundaries of orthodoxy
they arrogantly claim to be equivalent to or better than the
Apostles, by implying that they are capable of providing the
direct Apostolic guidance that is required in order to define
orthodoxy.

Second, we are further removed from the Apostolic era than
ever. Thus, orthodoxy would be more obscure than ever and
more difficult to define. Therefore, we would have to favor
the teachings of those in closer proximity to the Apostolic
era over those offered by persons who are further removed.
This principle would conflict with the idea of orthodoxy being
accumulated over time through ongoing scholarly efforts since
that view is defined by an increase in clarity over time,
while simultaneously depending upon the idea that clarity
is lost over time since the close of the Apostolic era.

Therefore, since we have demonstrated that none of the three
options offered by proponents of the Accumulated View of orthodoxy
can be accepted, we must reject the Accumulated View of Orthodoxy
and instead adopt the Pristine Apostolic Faith. We must reject
the idea that orthodoxy is developed over time through ongoing
scholarship, and accept the idea that orthodoxy was handed
down intact and understood by the Apostles to the second and
third generation Christians and the modern church must return
to the orthodox teachings of the early Church.

What does the Scripture have say?

The New Testament itself actually answers for us the questions
that we have been addressing in this study. It upholds that:

1. Orthodox teaching was resolved, intact, and fully
understood by the Apostles at the onset of the Church. 2. The Apostles and early church leadership saw it
as incumbent upon themselves to proclaim and protect sound
doctrine as well as to pass that teaching on to others who
would do likewise. 3. All Christians of all generations are bound by these
doctrines that were handed down and taught from the onset
of the Church, and not allowed to deviate from them. 4. Eventually, orthodoxy would be infiltrated by false
prophets and false teachers who would introduce false doctrine
into the church. 5. We must be on our guard and refute those who would
seek to deviate from the sound doctrine that was understood
at the onset of the Church.

Acts 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among
whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall
see my face no more. 26 Wherefore I take you to record this
day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27 For I
have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock,
over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to
feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his
own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing
shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the
flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise,
speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of
three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with
tears. 32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and
to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and
to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you for remembering me
in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as
I passed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm
and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether
by word of mouth or by letter.

1 Timothy 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at
Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge
some that they teach no other doctrine,

1 Timothy 4:9 This is a faithful saying and worthy
of all acceptation.10 For therefore we both labour and suffer
reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour
of all men, specially of those that believe. 11 These things
command and teach. 12 Let no man despise thy youth; but
be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation,
in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. 13 Till I come,
give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 14
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee
by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them;
that thy profiting may appear to all. 16 Take heed unto
thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for
in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that
hear thee.

2 Timothy 1:13 What you heard from me, keep as the
pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ
Jesus.

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard
of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful
men, who shall be able to teach others also.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and
is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training
in righteousness,

Titus 1:9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy
message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others
by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it...13
This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that
they may be sound in the faith;

Titus 2:1 You must teach what is in accord with
sound doctrine.

Titus 2:7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern
of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity,
sincerity,

Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke
with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write
unto you of the common salvation, it as needful for me to
write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly
contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before
of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning
the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the
only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:6-8 I marvel that ye are so soon removed
from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another
gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble
you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we,
or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you
than that which we have preached unto you, let him
be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if
any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have
received, let him be accursed.

2 Thessalonians 3:14 And if any man obey not our
word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company
with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet count him not as
an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that
in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving
heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

1 Timothy 6:3 If anyone teaches false doctrines
and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus
Christ and to godly teaching, 4 he is conceited and
understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies
and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious
talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between men
of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who
think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and
the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead
at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant
in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all
long suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when
they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts
shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and
shall be turned unto fables.

Matthew 7:15 Watch out for false prophets. They
come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are
ferocious wolves.

Matthew 24:11 and many false prophets will appear
and deceive many people.

Matthew 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets
will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive
even the elect--if that were possible.

Mark 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets
will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive
the elect--if that were possible.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among
the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.
They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying
the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction
on themselves.

Conclusions

We must reject the Accumulated View of Orthodoxy because it
requires the acceptance of several absurd and profoundly arrogant
conclusions.

1. Modern scholars possess a more comprehensive understanding
of orthodoxy than the Apostles did. 2. Modern scholars are capable of passing orthodox
teaching on to the Church, even though the Apostles failed
in this endeavor. 3. There is some heretical doctrine, which is an indistinguishable
part of Orthodox Church doctrine.

Therefore since we must discard the Accumulate View of the
origins of orthodox teaching and we must accept the Pristine
Apostolic Faith. This means that:

1. Successive generations of the church are not free
to reinvent or redefine Christian beliefs and teachings. 2. In general, Any teaching that is new (that is, not
found in the scripture and reflected in the writings of antiquity)
is therefore a false teaching and must be rejected as heresy.
(Also see #6 below.)3. Orthodoxy is defined as a single, harmonious (non-contradictory),
and knowable position on all issues of the faith that was
defined and preserved for us in the New Testament scripture.
4. Heresy is defined as any doctrine that falls outside
of the single, harmonious, known interpretation of the scripture
defined and preserved in the New Testament canon and handed
down from the Apostles to the second and third generation
of Christians in the earliest Christian antiquity. 5. Heresy can and must be identified and removed from
orthodox Church doctrine by returning to the doctrinal positions
handed down by the Apostles, preserved in the New Testament,
and reflected (albeit imperfectly) in the early church writings,
specifically the Apostolic Fathers. 6. Only if and where the Apostolic Fathers can be demonstrated
by the grammatical-historical method to diverge or conflict
with the canon of scripture, should their views be rejected.